If there's any state in the nation that should welcome the Medicaid expansion provisions in the Affordable Care Act, it's Kentucky. Ezra Klein published this chart the other day, highlighting which states benefit most, and least, from the policy. Take a look at which state was #1.
With that in mind, one would assume that Kentucky Republicans, based on nothing but common sense and a basic desire to do right by their own state, would have to concede that Obamacare's Medicaid expansion is a great deal. Except, they're not -- Kentucky's House Minority Leader, Republican Jeff Hoover, argued this week that the state should deliberately opt out.
What was his rationale? Hoover and his GOP colleagues pointed to an Urban Institute report that showed 400,000 uninsured Kentuckians would be eligible for coverage under the expansion, and that the state simply can't afford to bring access to so many people.
Joe Sonka noticed the problem with the argument.
Actually, the Urban Institute says Kentucky and all but four states will save money with this reform.... Taking a conservative estimate on Kentucky's potential savings, the Urban Institute (KY GOP approved) expects Kentucky to save anywhere from $140 million to $828 million by 2020.
So according to the Urban Institute, the dreaded Obamacare Medicaid expansion will bring to Kentucky: additional coverage for around 400,000 low-income Kentuckians [and] an additional $140-$828 million dollars saved in the state budget.
In other words, Kentucky Republicans want Gov. Steve Beshear (D) to turn down a great deal for Kentucky -- a deal that will save the state money while expanding access to medical care for hundreds of thousands of people in the state -- just because. In this case, they're citing an Urban Institute study that actually shows the opposite of what they think it does.
And as you may have heard, it's not just Kentucky.
As of the last count, "at least 15" governors are prepared to reject Medicaid expansion, no matter how good a deal it is, and no matter how many of their constituents would be better off. The states that would benefit most are generally the same states that are most adamant about rejecting progress.
This doesn't make sense.
Why would governors be fiscally irresponsible (on purpose), while keeping health care coverage from their own constituents (on purpose)? Even in the face of simple arithmetic? I think Ed Kilgore has the right answer:
You can expect the Jindals and Haleys and Perrys to ignore or dismiss such estimates as biased or unreliable, just as Republicans have almost universally scoffed at the CBO estimates "scoring" ACA as a federal deficit reducer. Another problem is that Republican pols typically claim that the existing Medicaid program as fiscally unsustainable, so they won't accept it as a baseline for what is tolerable in the future.
But more importantly, we have to remember that this is an ideological and even a moral issue to conservatives, who view dependence on any form of public assistance as eroding the "moral fiber" of the poor (as Paul Ryan likes to put it), and as corrupting the country through empowerment of big government as a redistributor of wealth from virtuous taxpayers to parasites who will perpetually vote themselves more of other people's money.
That those who'll benefit most are poor, who are presumably supposed to pull themselves up by their bootstraps after the rich get another tax cut, doesn't help. Republican policymakers prioritize some constituents more than others, and struggling families without health coverage just aren't important right now.
Leave a Comment:
Like with the stimulus dollars, these governors will talk a good game about FREEDOM! and then knuckle under when the AMA and various hospital lobbyists yank on their chains.
Actually, in Kentucky, it's not the governor, who is a Democrat. It's the idiot Congressmen and even more idiotic Senators.
I'm still trying to get Washington state and Seattle to annex Louisville somehow. Neither Olympia, nor Seattle has returned my calls.
Doesn't this also mean that Kentucky would probably have fewer actual people who would benefit since this chart is expressed in percent of decrease? Otherwise, why wouldn't the chart express the results in total number of individuals who would benefit?
To help clarify for anyone uncertain, if State A only had 2 people who fell into the expansion covered by the increase to 133%, decreasing by one would cut the number in half or by 50%. State B with 100 people and only 30 qualifying would decrease by less than a 1/3 or 30%. State A would have the greater percentage but State B with a lower percentage would have 15 times more people helped.
I would love to see the raw numbers if anyone finds them.
I found the raw numbers in a link off Klein's original article. As suspect, but not by as much, Kentucky falls somewhere north of middle in total numbers helped by the healthcare act 133% increase. But putting raw numbers would not put Kentucky at the top.
Got to study numbers a little more to comment farther.
One last observation/question I need help with if anyone knows.
If you look at the raw data chart from Kaiser Commission you notice Kentucky has 329,000 who would qualify given the increase to 133%. You then notice the next column list 250,704 of those as previously uninsured. This means 250,000 (roughly) now have insurance that would not have had it w/o the act.
The percent decrease in uninsured is 57.1% which can not be derived from these two columns. Where did that other number come from in this data? I couldn't find it. (That's my question.)
RobDon,
I don't have an answer to your question but I wanted to share an old saying I picked up in high school (40+ yrs ago) from one of my math teachers, "Torture numbers and they will tell you anything." It is always amazing to me what a universally true observation it has been.
I wondered the same thing. It would make more sense and tell you more if the denominator was something other than total poor without insurance. Total poor would be a good choice, or total without insurance.
It comes from taking the total number of uninsured adults who are also under the 133% number, THEN looks at the decrease by percentage in that population. Example: 100 adults uninsured and below the 133% number will decrease by 25% if in the end 25 people have been covered and 75 have not. ----- I think :-)
Jason, I agree. My question was where did they get the "100" from in your example. That value is not listed in the data. You can calculate by working backwards. But they had to have it to figure the percent. Still not sure the source. But thanks all!
Notice how Obama tries to help red states, under gwbush the blue states got almost nothing.
Hi Henry, I am a lucky person and am doing OK, how about you?
but more importantly, we have to remember that this is an ideological and even a moral issue to conservatives, who view dependence on any form of public assistance as eroding he "moral fiber" of the poor...and as corrupting the country through empowerment of big government as a redistributor of wealth from virtuous taxpayers to parasites who will perpetually vote themselves more of other people's money.
Two questions: 1) so is dependence eroding the moral fiber of the rich who get subsidies, tax credits, write-offs, and lower tax rates? 2) are the rich the real "parasites who will perpetually vote themselves more of other people's money"?
Well said, consistency is not a strong suit of the right wing
Thanks, Judy. Those were the thoughts coalescing in my mind until your comment gave voice to them. I'm afraid that the answer to (2) is "YES!", and "maybe" to (1).
People who dismiss the unemployed and dependent as "parasites" fail to understand economics and parasitism. A successful parasite is one that is not recognized by its host, one that can make its host work for it without appearing as a burden. Such is the ruling class in a capitalist society. - Jason Read
Well today's parasite is Wall Street and banks. Knowing that makes it easy to see when these parasites attempt to make the good or poor look like parasites
Folks, you are making this way way way too complicated.
Johnny Carson had a saying, “If you accept the premise, you accept the bit.”
Somewhere in the 90s it dawned on conservatives that civility, compromise and actually being useful (eg Katrina reaction) were off message.
Progressives, we have to get a little more pro about this. Don't underestimate your opponent by constructing narratives based on the idea conservatives are lunatic hypocrites. They aren't. The ruling plutocrat's who own DC and many state governments need government to be dysfunctional so that they can continue their activities. They are buying a product, and conservatives are delivering.
Well said!
John, the same argument could be made in reverse.
1. Premise: The government is the solution to everything.
2. Bit: Your job as a government official is to create more and more ways to give things to people so they become dependent on the government instead of themselves.
To think that the Republicans purposefully created the problems in Katrina to show the incompetence of the Government is lunacy (IMHO). Democrats were involved in that process and they fared no better. In fact, Mississippi's Republican Governor probably did the best job of anyone in the process judging by results.
You probably certainly agree with my analysis and understandably so, but it has just as much support as yours assertions...again, IMHO.
Many people in my SBC church went down to the Gulf states after the disaster. They sincerely believe that other institutions are better at maintaining social fabric. They can help, and believe me, I understand the point. Your insertion of "always" is your tell.
Part of the deliberate creation of dysfunction is to create dysfunction in public discourse. Deconstruction of American ideals of fair play and civility is necessary because each side must be prevented from talking to talk to each other. So the language of extremism is integral to the entire package. Is government always the problem? Is it always the solution?
John, thank you for pointing out the issue with a large part of political discourse. Speaking in broad generalities is misleading. There are few things that "always" or "never" happen. Even a statement like "the sun always rises in the morning" has exceptions in extreme polar latitudes where the sun never sets for part of the year and never comes above the horizon for another part of the year.
Is government always part of the problem? No. Is government never part of the problem? No. However, there is a lot of room for perspective between these two extremes, and therein lies the issue.
The largest problem with government in general is that laws tend to be aimed at governing the majority - mostly because it's nigh-impossible to account for all the exceptions to a given law.
The incivility and dysfunction in discourse is to derail any substantive discussion about the functions of government. Dems are terrible at messaging so conservatives continue to push the idea that government does not work. And people believe that message because there is not counter argument to challenge the idea. Instead of focusing only on narrow issues, Dems could be arguing their case for government services and taking that message to every state at every level of government. People are not going to suddenly change their minds and agree that government can perform useful functions. It is an evolutionary process by chipping away at the major premise for conservatives.
Hey Mike.
If you get a chance, Take a look at Obama's Maumee speech in its entirety. (transcript). Obama was fully flexing the World war II call to unity. Here's the important part. Don't preach to the choir, just make sure that they vote on Nov. 3, because odds are that most of them won't.
People wonder whytf I have anything to do with an SBC church. I go every Sunday. Believe me, some of the sermons are exceptionally unpleasant, homophobic, socially repressive and antithetical to pluralism and small d democratic principles. That is, they are deeply un-american in their flag waving kind of way. But I don't hate them, and I do talk to them about these themes, though not quite as bluntly. Mostly I walk the walk. They know I am progressive, they see my 6 well mannered religious children and they know that I am not putting on a show. I present dissonance for them.
Obama is talking about this fundamental principle of not turning this into a Punch and Judy show. His messaging is connecting well. Here is an excerpt from the Maumie speech last Thursday:
So what does that make republicans who are not willing to work? When the country is in bad times facing big challenges, what kind of person refuses to pitch in and work together?
It makes them un-American, back biting do nothing feather bedders. And that something that resonates in America's heartland.
My question Mike is what happens in the congressional races- if they are able to marshal this theme. I have no doubts Sherrod Brown understands this- I wish those following the McCaskill-Ed Rendell-Bill Clinton sort of moderate messaging well, but I think it blows a remarkable opportunity to contrast with a do nothing congress, and talk tough about kicking the asses of those who own DC and want our system and democracy to fail. I am not advocating mob populism- my Cherokee ancestors felt the dark end of Jackson's populism. There is a sensible way to channel people's frustrations into positive unity against clearly identified opponents of our system. There are rational arguments to back up those channeled emotions. It's a big political risk for folks tempted to stick with the blue dog route. Those blue dogs got their heads handed to them in 2010, and I am with Thomas Frank on this. There was a time that progressives were very strong in the midwest. We lost that connection, and this is a golden opportunity to recapture it due to the high contrast with GOP obstructionism and blatant Wall Street corruption.
It's time to have some balls/ovaries and spike the ball.
Gawd I get garbled when I type fast-
It is campaign season and I think folks need get useful and start talking to people who don't agree with the President. Let's stop wasting time only talking to people who only agree with us. The main thing to do with progressives is to get them to mail their ballots in early. To get them to take a break from throwing crap at the television, get their fat asses off the couch and vote on Nov. 3.
It is fundamentally weird that folks like Obama Girl forgot to vote in 2008, and that most of the crowds who came out for Obama in 2008 were no shows at the polls in 2010.
The way to marshal public opinion on the local level is for Dems to point to the federal money being spent in their districts and programs that are funded by federal taxes. What I see as the stumbling block is Obama is running his own campaign independent of the party. He needs to have a unified message with every Dem running for office and that message should be government programs work in the local district. Republicans are going try to derail the discussion, but Dems need to keep going back to the big message. It may take a few election cycles for the message to sink in.
John, you comments are awesome in scope and depth. I've learned a lot!
John, reading your comments leads me to believe we have more in common in our outlook than differences. I too attend a SBC and sometimes cringe at the content or delivery of what is supposedly truth. I too address it in as productive way as possible. I think "truth" (as SBC define it related to God's Word) and personal opinion and/or interpretation are often confused...but that is an entirely different discussion not related to this...sorry.
Two quick points...I didn't use the word "always" but did in the sense I used the word "everything." So, point taken. And I agree.
Related to your larger point is that saying you are willing to work together and actually working together is not always the same thing. Defining "working together" needs some agreement.
As a for instance, putting ideas that the other side promotes into a bill and then adding dozens of other things the other side disagrees with is not working together. You can't do this and then claim, "hey, we are using some of their ideas." I think you get this picture and can see where one side can easily paint the other side as uncooperative inaccurately.
Red states have been leeching off the blue states, which drives me nuts that they vote GOP
That is the Tea Party way, vote for what you do not like, and trash on what you do like.
You can't cure stupid! They appear to have a monopoly as well...
I always wonder how long it's going to take a majority of the people in red states like Kentucky, Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana that there's a relationship between their economic/social poverty and the dirtbags they keep voting for.
This person in Kentucky knows this, as do the rest of the educated metro areas of Louisville & Lexington. Obama won those counties, as do the Democratic candidates for Congress. It's the people living down the holler that keep electing idiots like Rand Paul and Mitch McConnell.
I keep hoping we'll get some of those Voter ID laws here in Kentucky, because that would elminate a lot of those votes & not the typical Democratic voter. Probably why Republicans here aren't pushing them.
Some other interesting data is for every dollar received in tax revenue from Kentucky, the federal government spends $1.76 in that state. This is pretty consistent among red states and the money comes predominantly from blue states. So to the red states that insist on reducing federal spending, ending the "redistribution of wealth" and stop socialist welfare policies, I say fine...cap federal spending to a fixed percentage per state below 100. Then let the local governments figure out how to deal with the revenue shortfalls...not a very compassionate idea, but maybe the wake up call will finally occur.
It is humorous to watch them argue against what they want, and argue for what they are against.
excuse me if i don't get all teary eyed this time. i think it was shakespeare who said something to the effect that the slave held the means of his deliverance in his own hand. its high time these unfortanates got off their butts and did something about their situation POLITICALLY. why is it that the states where these numbers run the highest elect clowns like paul, demint, scott, and jindal? i know that the baptists have a hammerlock on many of the dimwits, but even those dumbells can surely read granny's medical bill. i'm to the point that i feel little sympathy anymore. those who allow a vitter to represent them deserve to revel in the good ole american ideals of 'economic freedom', poverty, ignorance, and degradation. f-em!
Honestly, on some days, I feel like they deserve whatever they vote for, but the problem, of course, is that they still get to vote for the next President, and I'm always fearful that they're plenty enough to make their Stupid Votes count, thereby--and God help me--giving Mittens the Presidency.
(I shudder in terror just thinking about it)
Like I said before, Jefferson County & Fayette County (the cities of Louisville and Lexington) consistently vote democratic. But we're only two counties. The message the rest of the state gets is the one that is the loudest & most expensive. Democrats don't waste their time or money here.
based on nothing but common sense and a basic desire to do right by their own state
"Common Sense" and "Desire to Do Right" require that a person have a brain and a heart, two items that are incompatible with membership in the Republican Party.
Not to mention, those 400,000 poor Kentuckians might get it in their mind to start voting in favor of their own interests after getting good medical care, and Republicans can't be having things like that going on, can they?
Reject it "just because".... War on the Poor, War on women, War On The President Of The United States Of America, Barrack Obama.... Just because.... Their racist, One need not look farther than the way the GOP-TEA Baggers (it's just one party now btw), have treated this President. It's Shameful, disgraceful, and disgusting.... We Will Remember In November~ and long after~ !!!!
I actually believe some sort of Legal action should be taken against an elected official who intentionally withholds medical care from its citizens, but why would these politicians educate their constituents to realize there are better choices than being sick and left to die? that would cause those people to be spoiled, why should they be healthy? remember, health care is a privilege and not a right according to some..
so you have a right to smoke, eat unhealthy foods, not exercise, take drugs or whatever- and then go the hospital and need a by pass- and you have a right to make your fellow citizens pay for it? what is fair about that?
In terms of the states that take the deal- as I understand it after a few years they have to pay 10% of the costs- where is that going to come from- are you going to donate to help pay the 10%?
ST54, You make no sense in your analysis, no one is advocating living an unhealthy lifestyle, (which people are already doing) and going to emergency rooms for care, what is your objections to people getting preventive care services and being educated in proper nutrition as you seem to suggest in your above comment, try to get your head around the idea of "everyone" no matter their political affiliation making an attempt towards good health, which which eventually lower the total costs of care, that's if you are capable of seeing beyond yourself...
where is that going to come from- are you going to donate to help pay the 10%? ------- It is called taxes, taxes help our country in countless ways. Are you simply saying American cannot afford to "promote general welfare" or the pursuit of happiness?
Here is a suggestion, ask your Politicians who already receives too much from taxpayers in the form of salaries and their own health care to pay for their care themselves as well as their staff and their families (wife, children etc) get their own, I am tired of paying health benefits for millionaires....
It seems that only the Tea Party Republicans would rather let their own constituents suffer rather than provide something initiated by a fellow Republican (Romney) and expanded by a Democratic president. How is it that certain Repubs can get people to vote and act against themselves?
Amazing reading just shows many politicans think of their own well being and not the people they are supposed to govern.
In Canada we are a different bunch we are the same as Americans and visit Canada and you would think ya was still in USA but our people think different.
In Vancouver a homeless shelter had financial problems trying to renovate and rebuild so a generous Canadian couple made a small donation to help ythem out and we have many many govt programs to help the homeless the huingry we still need at times the generosity of Canadians.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2012/06/29/bc-anonymous-homeless-donation.html
I buy meds from Canada via the mail, that is the only way I can afford these meds, which Medicare doesn't fully cover.
I am a 60 year old white male Southerner and have lived in GA all my life. I'm liberal. What the rest of the country must understand is that white Southern Republicans DON'T WANT to expand Medicaid because they think most of the people who will benefit are B L A C K. That's why they don't like President Obama. Folks down here see my skin color, detect my age, hear my Southern drawl and assume I'm like them. They just open up with the N-word left and right. There is nothing Obama can do to make them vote for them, and they'll vote for Romney no matter what. They like he is a Mormon because they know the historical Mormon view on blacks, gay, and women. This suits them just fine.
Thank you for your insights. What you say is something most of us know, but hearing it from locals helps a lot to confirm some things that one who doesn't live there could ever know.
Painting white older southern men with a broad brush is just as racist as the comments John is referring to. I, too, am a white male in the South and while I can tell you anecdotally that there are more older men (and women) who openly share racist views there are many who do not share nor hold them. In fact, I've heard others speak out against them.
While it may also be true that geographically more people in the South still cling to older views of the world and races, still many, many do not.
Yes, address racism wherever it shows up but do not practice it in your attempt.
Do not think that is what I did or was trying to do. Also stand by what I said, most of us know already there are kkk people alive and well in places like Georgia, but Idaho also. Now did I just call all white folks, from Idaho kkk members? Of course not. Have I said I think there are kkk members in Idaho? Yes, I am
Jason, I certainly am willing to take you at your word that it was not what you did or was trying to do. The two parts that gave me that impression was this comment from John:
and then the quote I mentioned above from you. It just seems you two were painting with a pretty broad brush to label "white Southern Republicans" as racist. Like you, do I think there are racist white Southern Republicans? Yes, I know some. But to say that about the entire group seems overly extreme.
Sorry if I misstated your intent.
Again, not sure where I said all were racist. IF you want to think I am putting all people in one group I cannot help your misunderstandings. I stand by it again, I do not live in Georgia, so I do not know all the locals, but I do think there is a large group of racist there and hearing someone from there confirm that helps. Does anyone think there are no racists in Georgia?
Being a transplanted New Yorker to Mississippi of only two years, believe me when I say that racism thrives in MS. John Hall isn't alone in his assessment of southern racism. It is assumed that because I'm white that the N word can be used freely in front of me, and when I object, I am then categorized as 'an uppitty Yankee who thinks she's better than everybody.' I am amazed by the Christians who see nothing wrong in this.
Jason, then I take from your post that you believe SOME "white Southern Republicans DON'T WANT to expand Medicaid because they think most of the people who will benefit are B L A C K." That word (some) was not a part of the original post. No misunderstanding.
Jason Williams
Thank you for your insights. What you say is something most of us know, but hearing it from locals helps a lot to confirm some things that one who doesn't live there could ever know. --------- This is what I said, I am not sure why my position is so strange or odd to you, at no point have I said all white repubs in Georgia are racist, at no time have I ever said that, yet you want to paint me as someone who has indeed said that and furthermore believes it, so yes a complete misunderstanding on your part, especially since you think I posted something I did not post.
It seems that Republicans are off the mark. For the less fortunate to have a better chance to pull themselves up by the boot straps you need to first provide them with those necessary boot straps so they can get on to suceed in life. In case you do not see the analogy here the analogy is The PPACA legislation provides those needed boot straps.
Along that same logic Republican parents who help their children along in life must make their children start working at age 3 years old (child labor) without to earn thier way in life. I mean it is kind of the same thing: a child needs help and financial assistance to grow in their life, as do those children of the working class. If anything just do what is best for the children.
For an explanation of why right wingers are willing to follow policies that harm their own constituents, check out some of the discussions of why people go with belief and reject data that show their beliefs are wrong. There is a strong bias toward accepting statements that reinforce a previously held position and rejecting statements that contradict that position. This happens all through the political spectrum, but when someone's whole psyche and belief structure is based on faith, then it is much more difficult to change in the face of contradictory evidence than if the person's psyche was based on reality in the first place. At some level republicans realize that which is why the Texas republican platform has a plank calling for the elimination of critical thinking in the school curriculum.
"In science it often happens that scientists say, "You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken," and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion." -Carl Sagan
Was I ever surprised to learn that the Appalachia area (my home) does not vote for Republicans...though it is a myth perpetuated and believed...even I believed it thinking I was the rare liberal/progressive. I was well aware that most of the citizens of Appalachia voted/supported Democrats in their local communities..but it is also true when voting for their state representatives...the majority vote for the Democratic ticket.
Voting Republican in my home, western Kentucky, is something that has only become common since the 1980's. Educated, liberal Kentuckians do not just live in the urban areas of Lexington and Louisville. Kentucky has always voted mainly Democratic in local and state elections, but that is changing too. In agrement with someone earlier who commented on racism, my conclusion is that many people expressing dissatisfaction with the President are, at the least, uncomfortable with his race. Another point would be his position on coal mining. My home is in the middle of the western Kentucky coal fields where the closing of mines could severely hurt the local economy. Coal mining jobs are good paying in an undereducated workforce.
In Kentucky, residents are being told that the commonwealth can't afford the expansion. With the cuts in this year's budget including tradionally untouched k-12 education, it is probable that many people believe this.
Obama: long term stratagem for Hillary in 2016 ;)
This is probably the best discussion I have seen on an article, civil, and intelligent. I have learned from the posts. As I live in Wi. I am dumbfounded why Paul Ryan gets elected to office, but here his district is heavily Republican and people will vote against their own best interest, just because it his name has an (R) after it. I don't think a lot of people even know what he proposes or what policies he is pushing. Our airwaves are filled with conservative ads, and news programs interviewing them, you never see the same with the Progressives, even nationally that is true. Why don't we get our message out there?
Great question, I wish I knew the answer.
Agreed, Bette. This IS probably the best discussion I've ever seen on an article. It has long been known that Democrats, Progressives, liberals, what have you, fall short when it comes to outreach. I suspect it is because we find it hard to believe that reasonable people can believe what the other side is spouting. The problem is that (especially) in today's world of instant communication, sound bite reporting, and Tweeting mentality even reasonable people are beginning to respond more to hype and fear tactics. It takes too long to figure out what the real issues are. People who won't take the time to read a newspaper or even watch the evening news on TV will sit glued to the screen to watch late night talk show hosts make disparaging jokes about our elected leaders and think they know what is happening in the world.
It is rare to see a discussion on an article that does not dissolve into hateful, intolerant name-calling and slurs on both sides. I think it does no good for any side to be disrespectful. While I almost expect it from the conservative side (I'm sorry to say), I am deeply dismayed when I see liberals refer to "Mittens" or other even more objectionable terms. To me it shows a degradation of a reasonable society. We do need to get our message out, but it needs to be respectful. Unfortunately, unreasonable people are not likely to be receptive. It is demoralizing to be continually ignored, or worse, lambasted about your message when the "facts" as they know them are coming from sources like Rush Limbaugh, FOX News, or even Jay Leno. I don't know what the answer is, but I do know I've enjoyed reading this intelligent, respectful discussion.
"Our airwaves are filled with conservative ads, and news programs interviewing them, you never see the same with the Progressives, even nationally that is true. Why don't we get our message out there?"
Money. The Supreme Court decision on Citizens United and "corporations are people". Union busting in many states because unions predominantly stand behind Democrats/Progressives and are most of the larger contributors to Democratic campaigns. Whatever level of government, the Democrats are being outspent for ads by the Republicans by huge numbers, like 8-1. If you think about it, through corporate contributions to Pacs, our government may be decided by monies from foreign countries who may have some influence on not only who is elected, but policy decisions. President Obama is the first sitting president in history who is being outspent by the opposition on ads. The Republicans are serious about taking down small "d" democracy. If you don't agree, check out what's happening in Michigan. One by one, towns and cities are being taken over by a Republican governor- appointed city manager who ousts the democratically elected mayor, council, etc. and they no longer have any say in how the town or city is run. When petitions were signed and sent to put this law on the ballot, the Republican government said the "font was different" on the petitions so they weren't acceptable. Jobs bills are tabled or don't make it through the House; when people are out of work, they don't have much money to donate to campaigns, so keep the people out of work and put the blame on President Obama. Progressives must never forget that Mitch McConnell said, even before President Obama was sworn in, that the main issue for the Republicans was to make President Obama a one-term president. Take all the state and federal laws passed by Republicans, the scare tactics, and what has been filibustered to death, and look at the Big Picture. Therein lies the answer. Money. With enough of it, you can buy your government, and the Republicans have the corporations, a fair number of billionaires, and heaven knows who else pouring money into this election. We don't know because Pacs can be donated to anonymously. I have heard, but cannot substantiate, that by the election, the Republicans will have spent about a billion (with a B) dollars. Campaign reform, anyone?
Gov. Beshears is all go for the expansion, so nice try Obstructionist KY congressman and Senators especially Williams. Wanna see Williams choice for Ky, look up Richie Farmer and what fun he had ripping of the state as Ag. commissioner.
"Racist, Socialist, Left and Right Wing, Conservative, Liberal, Patriot": The semiotics of discourse micropolitics is fascinating. Labels whose genesis come from the complexity of a human brain with all its personalized experience cannot represent that person's ideas accurately. How much more difficult that the complex idea compressed into a tag phrase be accurately unpacked through the mental filter of an equally uniquely experienced listener or reader? Still, the words are all we have and without them we are reduced to howl and growl.
So let us truly celebrate Obamney Care for what it represents: a concept formed within the individual state with the spearheads of Democrat Kennedy and Republican(?) Romney, enacted successfully on the state level, adopted and legislated on the national level as the mostly-Democratically-fueled Affordable Care Act, challenged by Republicans through due process, then pronounced by a bi-partisan group of Supreme Court judges to be constitutional and upheld on all except the state Medcaid requirement (maintaining the state right to choose). From state, to federal, to judicial to enactment. That is the way the process was meant to work under the signifier "Democracy."
Thank you Mr. Romney and Mr. Obama for working together to create Obamney Care, a phrase whose deepest meanings and benefits will not be fully felt for years and will be tweaked by the legislative system for better or worse for decades to come.
T. S. Eliot wrote that "Between the conception and the creation falls the Shadow." We have seen that shadow between idea and action pass into metaphor and at the same time remain as an eternal threat from the hollow men of congress to the working and suffering masses.